#China military buildup

[creativemedianews]

China Conducts First Public Test Launch of Intercontinental Ballistic Missile

China Conducts First Public Test Launch of Intercontinental Ballistic Missile #ChinaICBMtest #Chinesemilitarydrills

[mariacallous]

Americans on November 5 will be electing a wartime president. This isn’t a prediction. It’s reality.

Neither candidate has yet spoken plainly enough to the American people about the perils represented by the growing geopolitical and defense industrial collaboration among China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. This axis of aggressors may be unprecedented in the potential peril it represents.

Neither candidate has outlined the sort of generational strategy that will be required by the United States to address this challenge. Irrespective of whether former President Donald Trump or Vice President Kamala Harris is elected, this will be the unavoidable context of their presidency. One will become commander-in-chief at the most perilous geopolitical moment since the Cold War—and perhaps since World War II.

In that spirit, Washington Post columnist George F. Will this week compared the 2024 US elections to the 1940 US elections, when the United States hadn’t yet formally declared war on Imperial Japan, Hitler’s Germany, or Mussolini’s Italy.

What was different then was that one of the two candidates, incumbent President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, sensed he was about to become a wartime president and was acting like it. FDR, wrote Will, “was nudging a mostly isolationist nation toward involvement in a global conflict” with his 1937 “quarantine speech” on aggressor nations and through his subsequent military buildup.

FDR’s opponent was Republican businessman Wendell Willkie, who like FDR was more internationalist than isolationist, in the tradition of his party’s elites of that time. “In three weeks,” Will writes, “Americans will not have a comparably reassuring choice when they select the president who will determine the nation’s conduct during World War III, which has begun.”

The point is that just as World War II began with “a cascade of crises,” initiated by the coalescing axis of Japan, Germany, and Italy, so today there is a similar axis—China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. Will reckons our current global crisis began no later than Russia’s 2014 seizure of Crimea.

This isn’t the first time that I have quoted diplomat-historian Philip Zelikow in this column. Writing in Texas National Security Review this summer, Zelikow reckoned that the next president has a 20-30 percent chance of being involved in worldwide warfare, which he differentiates from a world war in that not all parties will be involved in every aspect or region.

Zelikow, who recently expanded on these ideas among experts at the Atlantic Council, reckons that the next three years mark a moment of maximum danger. Should the United States navigate this period successfully, alongside global allies and partners, the underlying strengths of the American economy, defense industry, tech, and society should kick in and show their edge over those of the authoritarians.

The problem in the short term is that the United States is facing challengers in Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping, who may see a window of opportunity in the United States’ domestic distractions, a defense sector not yet adequate for emerging challenges, and an electorate that questions the value and necessity of US international engagement. Both leaders might calculate that acting more forcefully against Ukraine and Taiwan now could produce a greater chance of success than a few years in the future.

Wrote George Will: “From Russia’s western border to the waters where China is aggressively encroaching on Philippine sovereignty, the theater of today’s wars and almost-war episodes spans six of the globe’s 24 time zones.” He says this is what “the gathering storm” of world war looks like, borrowing the title of the first volume of Winston Churchill’s World War II memoirs.

Will charges the two presidential candidates with “reckless disregard” for failing to provide voters “any evidence of awareness, let alone serious thinking about, the growing global conflagration.”

If that sounds like hyperbole to you, it’s worth reading FDR’s third inaugural address in January 1941, almost a year before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, which prompted Congress to declare war on Japan the following day.

“To us there has come a time,” said Roosevelt, “in the midst of swift happenings, to pause for a moment and take stock—to recall what our place in history has been, and to rediscover what we are and what we may be. If we do not, we risk the real peril of isolation, the real peril of inaction. Lives of nations are determined not by the count of years, but by the lifetime of the human spirit.”

War isn’t inevitable now any more than it was then. When disregarded, however, gathering storms of the sort we’re navigating gain strength.

“In the face of great perils never before encountered,” Roosevelt concluded, “our strong purpose is to protect and to perpetuate the integrity of democracy. For this we muster the spirit of America, and the faith of America.”

[somerabbitholes]

Books you would recommend on this topic? Colonial, post colonial, and Cold War Asia are topics that really interest me. (Essentially all of the 1900s)

Hello! An entire century is huge and I don't quite know what exactly you're looking for, but here we are, with a few books I like. I've tried organising them, but so many of these things bleed into each other so it's a bit of a jumble

Cold War

1971 by Srinath Raghavan: about the Bangladesh Liberation War within the context of the Cold War, US-Soviet rivalry, and the US-China axis in South Asia

Cold War in South Asia by Paul McGarr: largely focuses on India and Pakistan, and how the Cold War aggravated this rivalry; also how the existing tension added to the Cold War; also the transition from British dominance to US-Soviet contest

Kennedy, Johnson, and the Nonaligned World by Robert B. Rakove: on the US' ties with the Nonaligned countries during decolonisation and in the early years of the Cold War; how US policy dealt with containment, other strategic choices etc

South Asia's Cold War by Rajesh Basrur: specifically about nuclear buildup, armament and the Indo-Pak rivalry within the larger context of the Cold War, arms race, and disarmament movements

Colonialism

India's War by Srinath Raghavan: about India's involvement in World War II and generally what the war meant for South Asia politically, economically and in terms of defense strategies

The Coolie's Great War by Radhika Singha: about coolie labour (non-combatant forces) in the first World War that was transported from India to battlefronts in Europe, Asia and Africa

Unruly Waters by Sunil Amrith: an environmental history of South Asia through British colonial attempts of organising the flow of rivers and the region's coastlines

Underground Revolutionaries by Tim Harper: about revolutionary freedom fighters in Asia and how they met, encountered and borrowed from each other

Imperial Connections by Thomas R. Metcalf: about how the British Empire in the Indian Ocean was mapped out and governed from the Indian peninsula

Decolonisation/Postcolonial Asia

Army and Nation by Steven Wilkinson: a comparative look at civilian-army relations in post-Independence India and Pakistan; it tries to excavate why Pakistan went the way it did with an overwhelmingly powerful Army and a coup-prone democracy while India didn't, even though they inherited basically the same military structure

Muslim Zion by Faisal Devji: a history of the idea of Pakistan and its bearing on the nation-building project in the country

The South Asian Century by Joya Chatterji: it's a huge book on 20th century South Asia; looks at how the subcontinental landmass became three/four separate countries, and what means for history and culture and the people on the landmass

India Against Itself by Sanjib Baruah: about insurgency and statebuilding in Assam and the erstwhile NEFA in India's Northeast. Also see his In the Name of the Nation.

I hope this helps!

[thahxa]

honestly one of the taiwan things is like. if not for taiwan, what's the whole chinese military for? they put an entire 1-2% (or so) of GDP into there! which is like. a totally normal amount of GDP to spend except of course china is so damn big that they get to have lots of cool things like aircraft carriers and stealth fighters and... wait, has anyone figured out what this military is for yet?

like the US spends quite a bit on the military but it has an excuse at least - maintaining military bases in a double-digit number of countries and being europe's army is hard work! occasionally they even decide to go off and fight terrorism or do a coup or whatever

but... the chinese military? their last war was in 1979 (with border conflicts until '91) but since then it's been nothing except occasional border conflicts with india (where, remember, they are not allowed to use guns). china has a state policy of nonintervention in foreign affairs, for any reason (including humanitarian) and wasn't a participant in the war on terror (nor really, had any of their own). in the civil war with burma, a country that it directly borders and whose civil war would have major consequences for china, chinese policy has been to... let some guns fall off the back of PLA trucks to the wa state. it's aiming to have a blue water navy and rival the united states for... what exactly again?

but of course taiwan fixes this! china isn't going to be crossing the yalu to invade south korea or crossing into the jungles and invading vietnam - it has no reason, and honestly no desire to, even though it could probably win if it needed, but at least with taiwan you can justify this force buildup to the beancounters

[erebusvincent]

For all of Trump's rhetoric about "endless wars" and Vance's attacks on "neoconservatives," however, the two politicians are all-in on some of the establishment's most destructive military adventures. And in some ways, Trump and Vance are even more hawkish than the baseline.

"A lot of people recognize that we need to do something with Iran—but not these weak little bombing runs," Vance said in a Fox News interview at the Republican National Convention on Monday. "If you're going to punch the Iranians, you punch them hard, and that's what [Trump] did when he took out [Iranian Gen. Qassem] Soleimani."

Vance praised Trump for trying to "enable the Israelis and the Sunni Arab states" to fight back against Iran. In a speech to the Quincy Institute in May, Vance tried to sell a U.S.-Israeli-Arab alliance as a way for the United States to "spend less time and less resources in the Middle East."

But that's exactly the strategy that got us here in the first place, and the proof is in the pudding. Trump's shows of force against Iran did not decisively end U.S.-Iranian conflict, nor did the Abraham Accords get Israel and the Arab states to pick up the military slack.

Instead, Trump ended up overseeing a massive U.S. military buildup in the region during his term and nearly went to war with Iran.

Vance even wants to add another counterinsurgency to America's "forever war" roster. In July 2023, he told NBC News that he would "empower the president of the United States, whether that's a Democrat or Republican, to use the power of the U.S. military to go after these drug cartels" in Latin America.

Washington is already heavily involved in that region's war on drugs, doling out support to Latin American militaries and border forces. Last year, several Republican candidates—including Trump himself—called for the United States to invade Mexico directly.

Trump and Vance also share the establishment view that the United States needs to get ready for a conflict with China over Taiwan. At the convention, Vance told Fox News that China is the "biggest threat" to America, and he has voiced support for building up the Taiwanese military with American weapons in the past.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Al Jazeera:

As elections in the United States draw closer, polls indicate that former President Donald Trump could be back in the Oval Office by early 2025. One possible indication of what a second Trump administration might look like is Project 2025, a transition plan spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, a prominent conservative think tank in Washington, DC. The 922-page doorstopper is essentially a how-to guide for a right-wing model of governance, proposing a dramatic overhaul of the federal government with plans to expand presidential power and purge the civil service of “liberals”. While largely focused on dismantling the “Deep State”, the document also offers pointers on foreign policy, striking a hawkish tone on China – “the most significant danger to Americans’ security, freedoms, and prosperity” – prioritising nuclear weapons production and curtailing international aid programmes.

How does Project 2025 see America’s place in the world?

On defence and foreign policy, Project 2025 aims for a definitive break with the administration of President Joe Biden. Christopher Miller, who served as defence secretary under Trump, slams Biden’s track record in the project’s hefty Mandate for Leadership section, speaking of “disturbing decay” and a “dangerous decline” in the “nation’s capabilities and will”. The signs are all there, Miller says, pointing to the “disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, our impossibly muddled China strategy, the growing involvement of senior military officers in the political arena, and deep confusion about the purpose of our military”. [...]

Taking on China

China is the project’s main defence concern. Miller fears the country is “undertaking a historic military buildup”, which “could result in a nuclear force that matches or exceeds America’s own nuclear arsenal”.

[...]

Targeting international aid

Max Primorac, senior research fellow in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation, dislikes the “woke ideas” being pushed by the US Agency for International Development (USAID). “The Biden Administration has deformed the agency by treating it as a global platform to pursue overseas a divisive political and cultural agenda that promotes abortion, climate extremism, gender radicalism, and interventions against perceived systemic racism,” he says in the project’s Mandate for Leadership. The project’s main bugbears appear to be “gender radicalism” and abortion rights.

Primorac argues that promoting “gender radicalism” goes against “traditional norms of many societies where USAID works”, causing “resentment” because recipients have to reject their own “firmly held fundamental values regarding sexuality” to receive “lifesaving assistance”. It has also, he says, created “outright bias against men”. He claims that abortion on demand is “aggressively” promoted under the guise of “sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights”, “gender equality” and “women’s empowerment”. To counter “woke ideas”, Project 2025 wants to “dismantle” all diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which it views as “discriminatory”. Among other things, this would involve scrubbing from all USAID communications references to the terms “gender”, “gender equality”, “gender equity”, “gender diverse individuals”, “gender aware”, “gender sensitive”, “abortion”, “reproductive health” and “sexual and reproductive rights”.

What does Project 2025 propose on the domestic front?

Much of the manifesto bears a strong resemblance to Trump’s known policy proclivities with proposals to deport en masse more than 11 million undocumented immigrants and give states more control over education, limiting progressive initiatives on issues such as LGBTQ rights. But on some issues, it goes further than Trump’s campaign, calling on federal authorities to ban pornography and reverse approval of a pill used in abortions, mifepristone. It also calls for anyone providing or distributing abortion pills by mail to be prosecuted. Project 2025 pledges to restore “the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children”. It recommends the authorities “proudly state that men and women are biological realities” and that “married men and women are the ideal, natural family structure because all children have a right to be raised by the men and women who conceived them”.

Project 2025 spells disaster from a foreign policy and a national defense standpoint.

[dailyanarchistposts]

Mega Schemes

Huge hydraulic schemes are made possible by advanced modern civil engineering techniques. They require vast international contracts that are only possible at the level of central governments, international free floating capital and supranational government organisations. The financiers borrow money and lend it at commercial rates, so they favour largescale engineering projects that promise increasing production for export markets at the expense of local subsistence economies, with disastrous social and environmental effects. Cash crops destroy settled communities and cause pollution of soil and water. For instance, Ethiopia’s Third Five-Year Plan brought 60% of cultivated land in the fertile Awash Valley under cotton, evicting Afar pastoralists onto fragile uplands which accelerated deforestation and contributed to the country’s ecological crisis and famine. There’s a vicious circle at work. Development needs money. Loans can only be repaid through cash crops that earn foreign currency. These need lots more water than subsistence farming. Large hydraulic schemes to provide this water are development. Development needs money. And so it goes.

Large-scale projects everywhere are the consequence and justification for authoritarian government: one of America’s great dam-building organisations is the US Army Corps of Engineering. Stalin’s secret police supervised the construction of dams and canals. Soldiers such as Nasser of Egypt and Gadafi of Libya and military regimes in South America have been prominent in promoting such projects. Nasser built the Anwar High dam in 1971. The long-term consequences have been to stop the annual flow of silt onto delta land, requiring a growing use of expensive chemical fertilisers, and increased vulnerability to erosion from the Mediterranean. Formerly the annual flooding washed away the build-up of natural salts; now they increase the salt content of irrigated land. The buildup of silt behind the dam is reducing its electricity generating capacity; the lake is also responsible for the dramatic increase in water-borne diseases. Nationalism leads to hydraulic projects without thought to what happens downstream in other countries. The 1992 floods of the Ganga-Brahmaputra-Barak system killed 10,000 people. 500m people live in the region, nearly 10% of the world’s population, and they are constantly at risk from water exploitation and mismanagement. Technological imperialism has replaced the empire building of the past: large-scale hydro projects are exported to countries despite many inter-related problems – deforestation, intensive land use and disputes and so on. Large-scale water engineering projects foment international disputes and have become economic bargaining counters, for example the Pergau dam in Malaysia. The British Government agreed to spend £234m on it in 1989 in exchange for a £1.3bn arms deal. In 1994 the High Court ruled that the aid decision was unlawful but these kinds of corrupt deals continue.

In Sri Lanka the disruption caused by the Mahawelli dams and plantation projects resulted in the forcible eviction of 1 million people and helped maintain the insurgency of the Tamil Tigers that resulted in thousands of deaths as they fought government forces from the late 1980s onwards. In 1993 the Marsh Arabs of southern Iraq were threatened by Saddam Hussein’s plans to drain the area – the most heavily populated part of the region. Many of the 100,000 inhabitants fled after being warned that any opposition risked death. Selincourt estimated that 3 million people would lose their homes, livelihoods, land and cultural identity by giant dam projects in the 1990s. The Kedung Ombo dam (Indonesia) displaced 25,000; the Akasombo dam (Ghana) 80,000; Caborra Bassa (South Africa) 25,000. Three dams in Laos alone will have displaced 142,000 people. The proposed Xiao Langdi dam in China would displace 140,000; the Three Gorges project 1.1 million people. Only war inflicts a similar level of human and environmental destruction, yet large dam projects have a chronic record in delivering water and power, or eliminating flooding in downstream valleys.

[workersolidarity]

China's push to hijack enemy satellites could be 'game over' for US, national security expert warns

Unlike the majority of journalists and commentators, I do not buy for one moment the official US media and govt's official story about the recent Pentagon Intelligence Leaks.

All this began when reports started popping up a few weeks ago about a US intelligence leak released on a discord server. These leaks purported to show intelligence on the Russo-Ukraine War, including troop concentrations and casualty counts that differed from public statements by officials.

Soon after the documents became public knowledge, the MSM media went into overdrive to uncover the leaker, literally doing the work of the FBI for them, with the NY Times and CIA news-front-organization Bellingcat tracing the leaks back to a 21 year-old Massachusetts Air National Guardsman named Jack Teixeira.

But how did a 21 year-old National Guardsman with a penchant for bragging on gaming discords get his hands on what appears to be high-level intelligence destined for high level officials including the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

Well, we know some things about how the US conducts its security protocols with regards to Military technicians who edit and put together intelligence for the Pentagon.

For one, it is standard protocol to investigate and monitor the various online profiles of Military service members with access to highly classified documents. This is done by multiple departments within the Federal Bureaucracy.

So I find it EXTREMELY not credible that an Airman First Class with the Massachusetts Air National Guard, with access to Top Secret Intelligence for whatever the purposes, could have been disclosing photos of Intelligence on a gamer Discord server without those agency's knowledge.

I find it far more credible that these agencies were in fact aware of Mr. Teixeira's penchant for braggadocio online and used him to release intelligence that they couldn't credibly release any other way.

The whole story was suspect from the beginning and after the leaker was revealed, it became obvious to me something else was going on here.

As far as I can tell, and this not an uncommon tactic during wartime, especially before an offensive, is that these leaks are part of a counterintelligence operation designed to mislead Russian military planners before the beginning of the coming Ukrainian counteroffensive. If I'm correct, they will likely be backed by various false telecommunications and radio transmissions designed to be intercepted by Russian intelligence.

This intelligence may suggest troop buildups in the wrong places, give wrong coordinates for ammunition depots, or it may misstate the size and direction of troop concentrations. Usually this is done in preparation for a large-scale offensive, especially, if as is the case with Ukraine, you've spent most of the last three months making public statements announcing your impending offensive.

The Russians, predictably, have spent that time building up fortifications and supplying troops in the areas they expect the offensive to come. At this point, it has become quite obvious the Ukrainian counteroffensive will be extremely costly for Ukraine, both in terms of military hardware and equipment, and also in terms of manpower, two things the Ukrainians can no longer afford to lose. The Pentagon is well aware of this and they're well aware of the likelihood that Russian Forces will go on the offensive again the moment Ukrainian troop formations are weakened, exhausted and running out of ammunition.

So what's the solution for the Pentagon?

Well if I'm right, these Leaks are designed to make sure at least some Russian troop formations are placed in the wrong places at the wrong times.

Their hope, if this succeeds, is to cut the landbridge connecting Russian-held territory in the Donbas with Crimea. At that point they will still be exhausted and running out of ammunition, but if US Counterintelligence can succeed in their manipulations and misdirection, enough troops and equipment may survive to hold and occupy the territory for long enough to call for a ceasefire and begin negotiations with the Russians before Russian Forces can go on the offensive again and retake the lost territory.

The reason I say this is because it's becoming more and more obvious that the US and NATO can no longer continue to procure enough ammunition and hardware to keep the war going beyond this offensive, and leaders in Washington and the Pentagon are already turning their attention towards China and ratcheting up tensions over Taiwan. They cannot fight both Russia and China, and when it comes down to it, China is the larger threat to US Hegemony.

And that brings me to this article on Fox and more confirmation to me that this Intelligence leak was on purpose.

Apparently, some of the intelligence leaked had nothing to do with Ukraine or the Russians at all. Some of the intelligence is apparently about China.

Specifically, the intelligence claims China is developing its cyber capabilities to include the ability to hijack or destroy enemy satellites. Needless to say this technology could be devastating to US or NATO forces ability to operate it's Forces, command the seas and defend Taiwan in close coordination in the event of war.

It seems very convenient that once again, this leak includes intelligence that, contrary to hurting US interests, actually reinforces the US narratives around China and Taiwan.

The article goes so far as to claim China is only investing in cyber and space technology in order to "disrupt, degrade and destroy US space capabilities".

The article quotes John Hannah, former Vice President and noted War Criminal Dick Cheney's National Security Advisor, as saying, "The future of warfare, one of the most contested domains, is going to be space. Space, in essence, is the new high ground. [The] country that controls space and the next battlefield is effectively, I think, got the best chance of actually winning the war,"

"If China is able to knock out our ability to see what the enemy is doing, our ability to exert command and control and communications between our own forces, it's virtually game over for us on the battlefield here on Earth," he continued.

The real goal over the coming year or two will be to wrap up the Ukraine War and ramp up a whole new one with China over Taiwan, using proxies, sanctions, preventing technology transfers, and direct confrontation on the South China Sea in an effort to contain and slow China's rise.

These Neocons in the Biden Administration just hop from one crisis to the next, crushing and destroying anyone and anything in their wake, regardless whether they pose any actual threat to the US Empire or whether they're threats are just perceived in the minds of the war planners.

[libertariantaoist]

News Roundup 12/6/2023 | The Libertarian Institute

Here is your daily roundup of today's news:

News Roundup 12/6/2023

by Kyle Anzalone

US News

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has hit out at Americans who prefer a less interventionist foreign policy, smearing them as isolationists who want to see the US “retreat from responsibility.” AWC

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has scheduled a vote for Wednesday to advance President Biden’s massive $106 billion emergency spending request that includes military aid for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, as well as additional funding for the border, POLITICO reported. AWC

Adm. Christopher Grady: US Can Handle Middle East, Russia and China All at Once. YouTubeThe Institute

China

Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo called for tighter export controls on advanced technologies going to China and labeled Beijing “the biggest threat we’ve ever had.” AWC

Russia

White House Will Run Out of Funds to Arm Ukraine By the End of the Year. FTAWC

US Assistant Secretary of State for Energy Resources Geoffrey Pyatt explained that Washington was plotting a decade-long economic war targeting Moscow. The US has maintained sanctions on Russia since the 2014 Washington-backed coup in Ukraine sparked Moscow’s annexation of Crimea. Following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, the economic war on the Russian economy was significantly intensified. The Institute

Bulgarian President Blocks Weapons Transfer to Ukraine. Newsweek

Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko has said Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is turning Ukraine into an authoritarian state as public criticism of Ukrainian leadership is becoming more common. AWC

Zelensky Cancels Address to US Senate. Forbes 

Israel

Biden Admin Says US Intel Had No Knowledge of Hamas Battle Plans for October 7. Axios

The UK announced on Saturday that it would begin surveillance flights in the skies above Gaza in search of captives held by Hamas. Over the past month, the US has conducted drone operations seeking hostages. Both Washington and London have engaged in a military buildup in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea in support of Tel Aviv. The Institute 

UN Warns Israel Against Exacerbating the Already Catastrophic Humanitarian Situation in Gaza. VOA

Israel Hayom reported last week that some members of Congress have reviewed a plan to condition US aid to Arab countries on their willingness to accept refugees from Gaza, which would facilitate the Israeli goal of cleansing the territory of Palestinians. AWC

Israel intensified airstrikes in southern Gaza on Monday and bombed areas where it told Palestinians to seek shelter, Reuters reported. AWC

Amnesty International: “US-made Weapons Facilitated the Mass Killings of Extended Families” in Gaza. Press ReleaseThe Institute

Polling continues to show that the majority of Americans favor a lasting ceasefire in Gaza, a position the Biden administration has rejected. AWC

The IDF Ignored Warnings Hours Before October 7 Hamas Attack. Haaretz 

The House on Tuesday passed a resolution that says “anti-Zionism is antisemitism,” the chamber’s latest piece of legislation conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism. AWC

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reaffirmed on Tuesday that he wants Israel’s military to maintain an open-ended occupation of the Gaza Strip after the current war. AWC

 Middle East

Officials Tell Politico that US Ships Under Threat in Red Sea and Persian Gulf. Politico 

The US Approves Arms Sales to UAE and Saudi Arabia. MEE

US officials are considering forming a Red Sea task force with other nations after a series of attacks by Yemen’s Houthis against commercial shipping that’s come in response to the Israeli onslaught in Gaza. AWC

Read More

[comeonamericawakeup]

"Our world resembles the 1930s more than we might think," said Hal Brands. As in the run-up to World War II, belligerent authoritarian states "are seeking expansive empires" and forming alliances, while a major "America First" political faction in the U.S. is preaching isolationism. Russia and China are not fully equivalent to Hitler's Germany and Imperial Japan, but as that era demonstrated, "the international order can collapse with devastating thoroughness and speed." China is conducting a massive military buildup in pursuit of its goal of absorbing Taiwan and dominating East Asia. Russia's invasion of Ukraine has escalated into a broad, dangerous conflict with NATO and the West. "The goal of U.S. policy should be to prevent major war," and deterrence will require a much greater capacity to produce artillery shells, other weapons, and air-defense systems to be shared with Ukraine and Taiwan. We also need to build more long-range missiles, ships, and submarines to keep the upper hand in "a great power war." In 1940, "the cost of failing to stop the fascist powers early was ghastly," including 60 million dead.

Containing and deterring Russia and China will not be easy or cheap, "but the alternative could be much worse."

THE WEEK March 29, 2024

[mightyflamethrower]

10 Facts About Communism

February 8, 2024 by The Historian

Communism, a socio-political ideology that emerged in response to the inequalities of industrial capitalism, has left an indelible mark on the course of history.

From its origins in the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels to its implementation in states like the Soviet Union and China, communism has sparked both fervent devotion and vehement criticism.

In this article, we delve into the complexities of communism’s legacy, examining its theoretical foundations, historical manifestations, and contemporary relevance.

From the classless society envisioned by its founders to the authoritarian regimes that characterized its implementation, we explore the multifaceted impact of communism on societies worldwide.

Communism Facts

1. Emerged in 19th century as response to capitalism’s inequalities

Communism arose as a socio-political response to the injustices and disparities brought about by industrial capitalism during the 19th century.

Also Read: Chernobyl Timeline

2. Aims for classless society with common ownership of production

Central to communist ideology is the vision of a classless society where the means of production are collectively owned by the people rather than controlled by a wealthy elite.

This collective ownership is intended to eliminate the disparities in wealth and power inherent in capitalist societies, ensuring that resources are distributed according to need rather than profit.

3. Marxism-Leninism adapted communism for Russia

Leninism, an adaptation of Marxist theory by Vladimir Lenin, was developed to suit the conditions of early 20th-century Russia.

Also Read: Timeline of Communism

It emphasized the necessity of a vanguard party to lead the proletariat (the working class) in a revolutionary struggle against the bourgeoisie (the capitalist class).

Leninism also advocated for the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat as a transitional stage towards the ultimate goal of a classless, stateless society.

4. Soviet Union first major communist state

Following the Russian Revolution of 1917, the Bolsheviks, led by Vladimir Lenin, established the Soviet Union as the world’s first major communist state.

The Bolsheviks, later known as the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), implemented Marxist-Leninist principles, including the nationalization of industry, collectivization of agriculture, and the establishment of a planned economy.

5. Cold War saw communism vs capitalism rivalry

The ideological conflict between communism and capitalism escalated into the Cold War, a geopolitical standoff between the United States and its allies (the Western bloc) and the Soviet Union and its allies (the Eastern bloc).

The Cold War, which lasted from the late 1940s to the early 1990s, was characterized by political tension, military buildup, espionage, and proxy wars fought in regions such as Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan.

The rivalry between the two superpowers shaped global politics and international relations during this period.

6. Often led to authoritarian regimes and human rights abuses

While communism aspired to create a classless and egalitarian society, the implementation of communist regimes often resulted in authoritarian rule and widespread human rights abuses.

Examples include the Stalinist regime in the Soviet Union, Mao Zedong’s rule in China, and the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia under Pol Pot.

These regimes were characterized by political repression, mass purges, forced labor camps, and suppression of dissent. The authoritarian nature of communist governments led to criticism from both within and outside the communist movement, undermining the idealistic goals of communism.

7. Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, ending Cold War

The Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991 marked the end of the Cold War and the disintegration of the world’s largest communist state.

A combination of internal and external factors contributed to the collapse, including economic stagnation, political reforms initiated by Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev (such as glasnost and perestroika), nationalist movements within the Soviet republics, and pressures from the Western bloc.

8. Few remaining communist states: Cuba, N. Korea, Vietnam, China

Despite the collapse of the Soviet Union, a few countries continue to adhere to communist ideology to varying degrees these include:

Cuba, led by the Communist Party of Cuba since the Cuban Revolution in 1959

North Korea, governed by the ruling Workers’ Party of Korea under a highly centralized system

Vietnam, where the Communist Party of Vietnam maintains a one-party system following the reunification of North and South Vietnam in 1976

China, where the Communist Party of China has maintained authoritarian control over the country since 1949, albeit with significant economic reforms since the late 1970s.

9. Critics cite stifling of freedoms, inefficiency, corruption

Critics of communism often point to its track record of stifling individual freedoms, limiting economic innovation and efficiency, and fostering corruption and inefficiency.

The abolition of private property and centralization of economic control under state ownership have been criticized for suppressing entrepreneurial spirit and creativity.

Moreover, the concentration of power in the hands of the state has led to instances of authoritarianism, political repression, and human rights abuses in communist regimes throughout history.

10. Some advocate modern adaptations for communism’s ideals

Despite the historical failures of communist regimes, some individuals and groups continue to advocate for communist ideals while seeking to address past shortcomings and adapt to contemporary challenges.

This includes proposals for decentralized socialism, participatory democracy, and sustainable economic planning.

Advocates argue for a reimagining of communism that prioritizes individual liberties, democratic governance, and ecological sustainability, aiming to create a more equitable and just society without repeating the mistakes of the past.

[softsoundingsea]

Tamaki fights plans to build SDF training site in Okinawa

(This article was compiled from reports by Nen Satomi, Taro Ono and Satsuki Tanahashi.)

NAHA--Okinawa Governor Denny Tamaki called on Defense Minister Minoru Kihara to retract plans to build a Self-Defense Force training site in his prefecture as the central government moves to bolster defenses in the nation’s southwestern islands.

“We cannot agree with the project,” Tamaki told Kihara at the Okinawa prefectural government office here Feb. 17 during a meeting that lasted less than 30 minutes. “We want the government to take the plan back to the drawing board and review it.”

The Defense Buildup Program, one of the three national security documents the government adopted in 2022, calls for enhancing SDF capabilities in southwestern Japan, centered around Okinawa Prefecture, due to China’s growing presence in the East China Sea.

The document said the Ground SDF’s 15th Brigade, which is based in Naha and comprises around 2,000 members, will be reorganized into a division.

The GSDF plans to open a new training ground in Uruma, Okinawa Prefecture, to handle the range of exercises required for the expanded division.

“In the face of the most severe and complicated security environment Japan has faced after World War II, we can lose no time in drastically reinforcing our defense capabilities based on the three national security documents,” Kihara told Tamaki during the meeting.

The proposed training site lies next to a residential area.

Residents are concerned about noise issues and the potential for accidents. Neighborhood community associations had already called for scrapping the project.

The meeting with Kihara marked the first time for Tamaki to publicly express his opposition to the project.

“The government has been hastily pressing everything forward particularly after it published the three security documents,” Tamaki told reporters after the meeting. “Anxiety among many prefectural residents is only growing, not subsiding.”

Before his meeting with Tamaki, Kihara sat down for talks with the heads of 11 municipalities in Okinawa Prefecture that host U.S. military bases.

Uruma Mayor Masato Nakamura told Kihara, “We want the central government to take the voices of local residents seriously and give careful consideration to the issue.”

Tamaki and Kihara also remained far apart over the project to relocate the U.S. Marine Corp Air Station Futenma in Ginowan, Okinawa Prefecture, to Nago, also in the prefecture.

While Tamaki renewed his call for suspending reclamation work, Kihara stressed that the government would forge ahead with the divisive project.

The Defense Ministry started reclamation work in Oura Bay north of Henoko Point in Nago in January after land minister Tetsuo Saito approved design changes by proxy the previous month, overriding Tamaki’s refusal to sign off on the modifications.

During the meeting, Tamaki called for convening a session of the Futenma air station burden reduction promotion council, which would bring together Kihara, Tamaki, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshimasa Hayashi, Ginowan Mayor Masanori Matsugawa and others.

The meeting was last held five years ago.

But Kihara said working-level officials will discuss the issue at a working group under the council.

“We renewed our determination to produce solid results toward reducing Okinawa’s base burden and drastically reinforcing defense capabilities in the southwestern region,” Kihara told reporters after the meeting.

Kihara’s visit was his first to Okinawa’s main island since taking office in September, which is exceptionally overdue for a newly appointed defense minister.

He visited Miyakojima and Ishigakijima, two islands in Okinawa Prefecture, in September to inspect GSDF units deployed at camps that opened in 2019 and March 2023, respectively.

Kihara met with Tamaki, who has consistently called for easing the U.S. bases burden borne by his prefecture, for the first time at the Defense Ministry in Tokyo in January.

[mariacallous]

Today, the flames of violent nationalism still flicker in the Balkans. Revisionist grievances and autocratic instincts animate leaders in Turkey and Hungary. The fallout from the 2009 European debt crisis and the years of hardship and austerity that followed showed that resentment of German influence—in this case, economic influence—is never deeply buried. Even today, as Putin gives European states every reason to work together, tensions between Ukraine and Poland or between France and Germany occasionally flare.

There are worrying political trends, as well. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has spent years deconstructing Hungarian democracy and touting the rise of the “illiberal state.” Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is carrying out a similar project in his country. Parties such as the National Rally in France are rising in the polls and trafficking in a hard-edged nationalism that can easily turn into zero-sum geopolitical thinking, with centuries of historical grievances ready to be awakened. The far-right Alternative for Germany remains a political contender even as it becomes more extreme. The triumph of these movements might well be aided by a Russia assiduously waging political warfare, all too eager to set European states against one another.

A fractured Europe gripped by its ancient demons is a nightmare scenario, and nightmares usually don’t come true. But what is crucial to understand is that a post-American Europe would be fundamentally unlike the Europe we have come to know. The geopolitical shock absorbers provided by U.S. power and its umbrella over Europe will be gone. The destabilizing uncertainty over status and security will return. Countries will no longer feel so confident that they can ensure their survival without resorting to the behavior—the military buildups, the intense rivalries—that characterized earlier eras. Today’s Europe is the product of a historically unique, unprecedented configuration of power and influence created by the United States. Can we really be so sure that the bad old ways won’t reassert themselves once the very safeguards that have suppressed them for 75 years are withdrawn?

Don’t make the mistake of thinking that Europe’s transformation into today’s peaceful EU can never be undone. After all, Europe experienced stretches of relative peace before 1945—in the decades after Napoleon’s defeat, for instance—only for that peace to collapse once the balance of power shifted. And don’t think that tragedy can’t befall a continent that seems so enlightened: The history of Europe, prior to U.S. engagement, was the history of the world’s most economically advanced, most thoroughly modern continent repeatedly tearing itself to shreds. Indeed, if there is a lesson from Europe’s past, it is that the descent can come sooner and be steeper than currently seems possible to imagine.

In the 1920s, the forces of liberalism seemed ascendant: British writer James Bryce hailed the “universal acceptance of democracy as the normal and natural form of government.” The newly founded League of Nations was offering novel mechanisms for crisis management. Countries were slashing their militaries and settling outstanding grievances from World War I. Just a decade later, it was the forces of fascism that had the momentum as the continent careened toward another world war. Europe’s own history is testament to how quickly and completely things can all fall apart.

America Firsters may think that the United States can have all the benefits of a stable Europe without paying any of the costs. In reality, their policies risk reminding us that Europe has a far nastier historical norm. That would be a calamity—and not just for Europe. A weaker, more fragmented Europe would make it harder for the democratic world to cope with challenges from Russia, China, or Iran. A violent, hypercompetitive Europe could cause fallout on a global scale.

If Europe has benefited from being part of a thriving liberal order in recent decades, that liberal order has benefited from having a peaceful, gradually expanding EU at its core. If Europe turns dark and vicious again, it might once more export its conflicts to the world. On the day that the United States retreats across the Atlantic, it will be placing far more than the future of Europe at risk.

Trump’s Return Would Transform Europe

[eelhound]

"[Van] Jackson 

Since the 1970s, America had repeated military buildups in response to perceived threats. Whether it’s the Soviet military buildup, or the War on Terror, there have been multiple periods where we do these large-scale buildups. This is why America’s military is so ginormous. We have done that under conditions where we don’t raise taxes in four different instances since the 1970s, and because we don’t raise taxes and spend so much on the military, we have to bring in large amounts of foreign capital to finance it. And so, you create global imbalances when you’re the giant sucking machine sucking foreign capital into your economy.

The result of that is not just global imbalances, which produce things like the Asian financial crisis, but it also produces imbalances in our own economy, too. It creates real estate bubbles. So, this is a giant volatility machine to the global economic order and the financial pipes that bring the capital to us. We know it’s a giant volatility machine. It’s driven by high risk financial instruments and speculation, and all of this is pretty destabilizing, in a financial and creating bubbles sense, but it also creates a system where all of these developing economies in Asia have to suppress labor rights to be competitive in the export market because their models of development rely on exports. This system that we perpetuate in the name of supporting military primacy, and military primacy is supposed to in turn support the system, prevents domestic redistribution and balanced capital labor relations in these other Asian economies and countries.

And so, not only are we creating conditions where labor rights get repressed, and imbalances in other countries, it creates systems of kleptocracy and oligarchy, which is rampant in Asia — not everywhere, but it’s pretty prominent. It’s structural violence, and structural violence is what gives way to greater political insecurity, and makes countries need Chinese capital. Chinese capital spreading around Asia is one of the things American foreign policy is so worried about, but we’re creating conditions that we don’t like, and then we do things that worsen those conditions.

[Nathan J.] Robinson 

Yes, it seems ultimately kind of self-defeating, even though we might say that what lies beneath the rhetoric of freedom and openness is the desire to pursue dominance and hegemony, or what the U.S. would call 'U.S. interests.' Ultimately, I think one of the conclusions of your work is that our current approach is not actually leading towards a world where the United States gets everything it wants, but, in fact, is putting not only other people but also ourselves in quite a bit of danger. 

Jackson 

Yes, the thing that Washington has to wake up to, and that I’m worried that it will not because it has incentives not to, is that the requirements of peace and primacy are deeply at odds with each other. Peace requires a certain degree of economic interdependence, regional cohesion, inclusivity in various ways, and above all, military restraint. Primacy requires the opposite of all of that. It requires the formation of rivalry and geoeconomic blocs. It requires containment against your rising rival, arms racing, and weapons proliferation.

It’s patently obvious that by pursuing primacy, we’re making ourselves the enemy of what remains of the Asian peace. It’s that insistence on primacy, coated rhetorically as openness, that is undermining the sources of the Asian peace. The preservation of stability the past 44 years is something that we somewhat take for granted in Washington, and we shouldn’t because it’s eroding rapidly, and Trump was simply a very vibrant data point along a larger trend line. And so, we’re not on a good track."

- Van Jackson being interviewed by Nathan J. Robinson, from "Why This Foreign Policy Expert Thinks Americans Dangerously Misunderstand China." Current Affairs, 16 May 2023.

[theculturedmarxist]

While it’s been a while since yours truly has posted on the war in Ukraine and our determination to mix things up with China, we seem to be in an intermediate phase of sorts. Major country leaders in the West remain focused on the conflict. The Collective West is trying hard at the G20 to muscle more countries in line, after an embarrassing fail in a similar exercise with Global South invitees to the Munich Security Conference. Biden and then Janet Yellen went for Kiev photo ops with Zelensky. That Biden trip, which made the Administration neglect of the East Palestine toxic train blast more galling, gave Republicans, most of all Trump, an easy win.

But there are more signs of anxiety and erratic behavior by key players. While the structure of the system looks the same, more and more energy is being pumped into it. Either it will be released somehow, say by an aggressor de-escalating, or the pressure will keep rising until we have a state change. And state changes means the system becomes chaotic. The September 2008 financial crisis was an example.

While we won’t dwell on China escalation today, the over-the-top, paranoid response to Commies under the bed peregrinating balloons looks like big-time displacement activity. We are in no position to whack China so we’ll whip ourselves in a frenzy over something we can (eventually) destroy.

Then the US and its NATO stooges went into effrontery overdrive at the Chinese presenting a high-minded napkin doodle and overselling it as a peace plan. Mind you, there were cool-headed ways of saying China has no nexus to this conflict save via its burgeoning friendship with Russia, and the latter means it can’t pretend to be a fair minded interlocutor.

Instead, the ham-handed outrage made the West look anti-peace, as opposed to anti China trying to play nicer hegemon. And then we have the conveniently-timed reheating of the lab leak theory on shoddy “new” evidence, and the House launching a “cut China down to size” committee.

The most charitable interpretation is China demonization is being readied as the next shiny object to divert attention from the coming Ukraine defeat, which will be very hard to ‘splain away. But there are competing interests at the top, with the Atlanticists very much committed to breaking Russia, not caring what the effect might be on the China project.

While arms makers theoretically make out no matter what, they can’t deliver quickly enough to make a difference in Ukraine, and they run the risk of having Russia demonstrate that our super-pricey, over-fussy weapons aren’t very effective in combat. So even more demand for hardware is not necessarily a boon. To fight an industrial war, we need lots of comparatively low tech munitions that they don’t regard as lucrative enough to interest them.

Mind you, the fact that principals are trying to increase pressure does not mean that they will succeed. Propaganda and optics and arm-twisting off and on allies only goes so far. A realistic trajectory for the Ukraine conflict is Western support will fizzle out as the Russian campaign continues to drain Western weapons stocks.

In keeping with that possibility, recall all of the drama of the buildup to the “anniversary” of the launch of the Special Military Operation last week. Western pundits and the press blathered on about how Russia was going to launch its over-anticipated offensive, even though Russia has insisted that it does not have a timetable for this campaign. Oh, and Putin’s overdue State of the Unions speech was not on the date when Russian forces moved into Donbass, but when Putin announced Russia was recognizing the breakaway republics.

Biden tried to upstage Putin with his trip to Kiev and then a speech in Warsaw. But Putin refused to play to demands of warmongers by stating that Russia was not going to full militarization. He delivered an otherwise informationally dense and long talk, treating his zinger, the suspension of Russia’s participation in the START treaty, as almost an afterthought at the end.

Not only did Russia not meet escalation expectations last week, Ukraine didn’t either. Zelensky had promised a big speech for the anniversary of the invasion, and Ukraine boosters expected something more, if not an offensive, at least a stunt, as in a headlines-getting jab that made Ukraine look like it was on the front foot even if in the end it would not affect outcomes. The Kerch Bridge bombing and the misuse of the grain corridor to attack the Sebastopol naval base are examples.

And there’s evidence that Ukraine is closer to the end of its rope than the press would have you believe. Brian Berletic has been relentlessly chronicling how US weapons deliveries to Ukraine have been falling, to the degree that the US has stopped putting numbers on many items. The commitment that Biden made in his Kiev trip was meager. Dima at Military Summary pointed out that Ukraine shelling has fallen markedly in the last week, suggesting Ukraine is forced to ration ammo. Dima has also been pointing out that the daily Russian “clobber lists” have almost no tank kills on them, contrary to earlier in the war, and instead mainly features destroyed armored and too often, passenger vehicles. That suggests that either Ukraine is hoarding its remaining tanks for its long-touted counter-offensive, or is really pretty much out of them. Big Serge, in a new piece, mentioned (as Dima has) rumors of a few of the Polish Leopard tanks having been deployed to Bakhmut. If true, Big Serge argues that would be proof that Ukraine is unable to accumulate reserves for a later offensive.

To use the new Big Serge piece as a point of departure, I have to differ with one of his high level points. He contends the Russians have been slow to launch their big offensive because they are having to make a very large reorganization from a military optimized for fighting small wars to one able to engage in a large scale, protracted conflict (Douglas Macgregor recently said Russia is now planning for an up to 30 month war).

It may very well be true that Russia is finding the process of changing its military organization to be time-consuming, but Big Serge, like many others, particularly those from military backgrounds, seem impatient for Russia to launch a big attack. Again, remember Russia has repeatedly disavowed having a timetable. The one thing they have promised, per General Sergey Surovkin, is to wage a grinding war, for among other reasons, to preserve Russian lives. This isn’t just politically sound; Russia also has comparatively few professional troops and needs to risk them only when the potential payoff is high.

Yours truly has opined that Russia’s moves are going to be even more reactive to events than one might normally expect in a war. Part of that is due to Russia facing layered opposition: its immediate combatant is Ukraine, but as we all know, it is fighting the Collective West. Russia is pressing and testing the West across all lines of combat: military, economic, geopolitical. For instance, it is too often simply not admitted that Russia controls Ukraine’s future. Only Russia can restore Ukraine’s grid; the West cannot begin to afford a rebuild. Russia does not need to point that out; it will come into play in due course.

So I hazard that the principles that are guiding Russia’s actions in the near-term in Ukraine are:

Paraphrasing Napoleon: “Don’t get in your enemy’s way when he is making a mistake” Don’t make sudden moves around crazy people

As Big Serge and others have pointed out, Ukraine’s strategy, such as it is, is close to ideal for Russia. Admittedly, Russia is in the midst of the difficult process of cracking Ukraine’s extensive fortifications without wasting Russian lives. That is why Russia is faced with the embarrassment of Ukraine still being able to shell civilians in Donetsk.

But thanks to the partial mobilization, Russia has hardened its positions all along the very long line of contact, which is also comparatively easy to keep supplied. Due to Ukraine’s need to maintain coalition support (mentioned as a major objective by Alex Vershinin in a late December 2022; Big Serge expands upon this idea), Ukraine is desperate to maintain the appearance of success. As many have pointed out, that translates into a refusal to make tactical retreats (save trivially) to preserve men and materiel. Worse, as we see particularly in Bakhmut, Ukraine keeps pouring forces and weapons into doomed positions.

So why, at least for now, should Russia do anything more than let Ukraine keep breaking its military on the shoals of Russians at the line of contact, and also keep pressing on as many potentially exploitable targets to force Ukraine to keep those positions defended and limit their ability to redeploy forces?

As frustrating as it is for war-watchers, Russia could keep the meat-grinder approach going until the Ukraine forces really do start collapsing, as in run out of ammo, are unable to send in reinforcements, and show other signs of serious inability to execute. Mind you, Russia still has a lot to do just to accomplish its immediate goal of clearing the Donbass and forces stationed close enough to shell it. Russia has also vowed to take all of the oblasts that voted to join the Russian Federation, so “liberating” the rest of Zaporzhizia would seem to be high on the list (the timing of Kherson would seem to be more up in the air due if nothing else to Kherson City being in an undesirable location).

The dealing with crazy people part also argues for making the war as boring as possible, and a slow grind serves that end too. The way to give the West an off ramp is to provide them the space to move the war off the front pages and then rationalize the abandonment of Ukraine (via greatly reduced support).

Putin’s biggest obstacle here would seem to be domestic hawks, who seem to get share of mind out of proportion to their numbers due to being both highly vocal and very good sources of day-to-day information on Telegram. Putin seems at least for the moment to have persuaded most Russians that not pursuing a war-time economy is the soundest long-term approach and I suspect he’ll continue to prevail in that debate. As long at the Russia public isn’t demanding a faster resolution of the conflict, the Russian leadership ought to have a fairly free hand with pacing.

Ukraine, despite being weakened, still has agency. And the US, with the Nord Stream bombing, has demonstrated it can be ruthless and utterly unprincipled.1 So far, all we have seen are failed or pinprick attacks that nevertheless get coverage, like the rumored but apparently never happened attack on a Russian plane in Belarus, or drone attacks meant for Moscow that didn’t get there.

Big Serge, along with many others, has discussed the rumor that Ukraine and Moldova will cook up a pretext for Ukraine to move on Transnistria. On paper, it’s not well enough defended to stand up to a determined Ukraine attack, and too far from Russia for it to readily send in reinforcements. So this could be a very big bloody nose for Russia and a huge morale booster.

The wee problem with this picture is the huge ammo dump that Russia is protecting. Russia could and presumably would blow that up, which per Moldovan (as in not Russia friendly) sources would be a nuclear level blast. On top of that, as Scott Ritter discussed long form in a recent talk with Garland Nixon and Andrei Martyanov, Russia’s Foreign Ministry made very clear that if Ukraine made a move on Transnistria, that would be an act of war against Russia. That would give Russia license to do things (to the mystery of Western military types) that it has refrained from doing, like taking out the Ukraine leadership. The noisemaking about that scheme seems to have died down.

But Russian officials have warned of intel on other provocations, such as chemical weapons and drums of radioactive material (along with hazmat gear!) being moving into Ukraine to stage false flag attacks that would be attributed to Russia. So until the US and NATO get over themselves, we could still see a lot of nasty developments.

And we keep seeing far too many stories in high profile Western outlets about how Ukraine can or must win, despite the lack of realistic ideas for how that happens. So expect if nothing else for the press to try to keep the emotional dial turned up to 11 even if the battlefield action remains a slow, bloody slog.

_____

1 Even if you do not believe Sy Hersh’s account, there is no way it happened without US approval and support in that Sixth Fleet lake called the Baltic Sea.

[gymnosperm]

so what's the deal with these weather balloons / "ufos"? what's the scheme? surely weather balloons have been drifting from china to usa since ever, right